Laws against cell phone use while driving can’t curb teen texters

On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Association released statistics on using mobile devices while driving, and the results show overwhelmingly that it's hard to get people to put down cellphones while they drive. At any given moment, the NHTSA's “Safety in Numbers” publication reports, 660,000 people are talking on hand-held cellphones while driving.

The administration also reported that one in two drivers will answer calls, and one in four drivers will initiate calls while driving. Young drivers, however, are much more prone to distraction. Three in five young drivers will answer calls, and one in three will initiate calls. Despite many states enacting laws that forbid using hand-held phones while driving, the NHTSA reported that the number of young drivers observed using a device while driving had doubled since 2010, to two in five. “Young drivers” are not explicitly defined in the published statistics, but are defined elsewhere on the NHTSA's “distraction.gov” site as drivers who are age 20 and younger.

The NHTSA reports that “in 2011, 3,331 people were killed in crashes involving a distracted driver, compared to 3,267 in 2010.” Of those 3,331 people, 12 percent were reported to have been using cellphones, and over half of the drivers in those crashes were between 15 and 29 years old. As the Los Angeles Timespoints out, there doesn't seem to be much proof that distracted driving laws, which have been enacted in 39 states and prohibit texting or using hand-held phones in some form or another, have actually decreased the number of distracted drivers on the road.

One statistic that seems to buck that assumption, however, is that in 2011 only “387,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving a distracted driver, compared to 416,000 injured in 2010,” writes distraction.gov. The NHTSA has long pushed for stricter enforcement of using mobile phones while driving, but it appears that drivers are a little less enthusiastic about those kinds of rules.

115 Reader Comments

It's going to solve problems as much as posting and enforcing speed limits do. People will speed. People will text. Make sure people are aware it is bad. Enforce without being an ass. Attitudes will change.

It will never ever ever be eliminated. Just like speeding.

The difference being speed is not inherently dangerous in a vehicle properly equipped/maintained with a trained driver behind the wheel. There's a reason it costs a lot of Euro/time to get a license and yearly vehicle inspections are required in Germany. Its an absolute pleasure to drive over there with very little of the idiocy you see on America's roads. Cruising at 100-110Mph is not unsafe when people are actually paying attention to the world around them and know the limits of their vehicle.

We need to ban handheld phone usage country wide just like they do; we all know its unsafe, its scientifically proven to be unsafe, we complain about all the other drivers being unsafe while doing it. What's the holdup? Impose a stiff enough fine and threaten to revoke the PRIVILEGE of driving and people will stop.

Edit: Before one of the people proclaiming speed kills, velocity isn't linear, etc says something about this. I have avoided accidents a few times at speeds ~100mph or so. One in particular I remember was a pile of bikes fell off of a car a few cars ahead of me. I braked and swerved around them successfully on winter tires with no warning. So did the other three cars in front of me. So tell me again how speed with proper distance is a problem?

Also when was the last time you saw a freeway that allowed bicycles, pedestrians, or vehicles incapable of a minimum speed?

Vehicles are inherently dangerous to begin with, then you take a teen who's only thought in the world is of what they want, who does not have the life experience of how to relate to others in relation to the consequences of their actions, then put them behind the wheel with a cell phone. Yah, I can see a problem here. However, there are also adults that act just as stupidly.

So its not just a teen only thing.

Someone mentions speeds of 100 - 110 Mph as not unsafe simply because someone pays attention. True, its not unsafe, if it can be assumed that nothing will go wrong, like a tire blow out, or a patch of oily asphalt when they try to brake, that some other driver will not cause them to take some sort of evasive action, and there is an absolute guarantee that another driver will not do something stupid or something else will not happen. Even then if something does happen over which they have no control, at those speeds they have less than the time of an eye blink to react to a serious situation and the vast majority of people simply do not have the capability to think and react and put their reaction into play in that short period of time. Even the natural human reaction to swerve away from danger takes on a whole new meaning at those speeds simply because for most it means the vehicle is in, at least for part of the swerve at a minimum, an uncontrolled state they need to fight against so the issue of control is compounded by other factors of trying to fight that ton of metal and plastic for absolute control which further detracts from recovery capability quickly because they simply have (for most) literally less than the time of an eye blink to recover quickly at those speeds, some get lucky some don't and those that do get lucky that's what it was just luck. Some of the most horrible accidents I've ever seen were at speeds greater than 50 MPH. A ton or a few tons or more of metal and plastics moving 100 MPH takes on a whole different meaning for guaranteed destruction when it hits something, it definitely has some different aspects to it.

I can't even count how many times I've been "threatened" by an idiot driver texting or staring down at their mobile device while driving. I've also had a long time habit of getting into position to see who is driving like an idiot and lately, 99.9% of the time it is some moron on their phone. The key to the laws working is their enforcement. Unfortunately, the cops are usually too fixated on their own smart phones to enforce the law.

I can't even count how many times I've been "threatened" by an idiot driver texting or staring down at their mobile device while driving. I've also had a long time habit of getting into position to see who is driving like an idiot and lately, 99.9% of the time it is some moron on their phone. The key to the laws working is their enforcement. Unfortunately, the cops are usually too fixated on their own smart phones to enforce the law.

We had a case here a while back; Driver was texting, hit a pedestrian on foot, kept on going, police called, they spot the car a few blocks away, three mile slow motion chase as the driver runs every red light and does not even realize the police are trying to stop him, doesn't even hear the sirens. The police finally do a pit maneuver resulting in the car stopping against a guardrail, driver is still texting away. They pull the driver out of the car and he wants to know why he is being arrested and needs to get back to the texting argument he is having with some woman.

That's an adult (at least age wise) which did that, but it also in some ways represents the teen thought pattern of completely oblivious a lot of times to the effect their actions may have on others. Sure, its not every teen, just like its not every adult. However, it is more likely to happen with a teen simply because that's the way most of them think - oblivious to the rest of the world to do something they want.

Personally, I think that if you're at fault in an accident then it should be determined if you had recently been SENDING texts. The carriers should make some sort of facility available to law enforcement for such purposes.

It should only tell them what time a text was sent, no other information, and there should be considerable oversight. But in my opinion it has to be done, too many people are getting hurt or worse. I have a friend whose twice rear ended someone (VERY minor) because he was texting, and he still doesn't get it.

It would be a tough sell in today's privacy conscientious environment, but it's needed. I'm also very concerned about privacy going forward with technology, so I think it would have to be limited to (Text Sent: 4:08pm), something like that.

Then, send out texts while driving and cause an accident and you don't get to drive for a while. Kill someone and go to jail.....

One problem with that is, if it takes the police 10 minutes to show up to the scene of an accident, there is no way to prove the exact time that the accident happened, or that the text had anything to do with it.

Personally, I think that if you're at fault in an accident then it should be determined if you had recently been SENDING texts. The carriers should make some sort of facility available to law enforcement for such purposes.

It should only tell them what time a text was sent, no other information, and there should be considerable oversight. But in my opinion it has to be done, too many people are getting hurt or worse. I have a friend whose twice rear ended someone (VERY minor) because he was texting, and he still doesn't get it.

It would be a tough sell in today's privacy conscientious environment, but it's needed. I'm also very concerned about privacy going forward with technology, so I think it would have to be limited to (Text Sent: 4:08pm), something like that.

Then, send out texts while driving and cause an accident and you don't get to drive for a while. Kill someone and go to jail.....

One problem with that is, if it takes the police 10 minutes to show up to the scene of an accident, there is no way to prove the exact time that the accident happened, or that the text had anything to do with it.

Unless cars have black boxes like airplanes do...

Sure there is, there are a number of indicators. Simply the nature of the accident most times when texting is involved indicates inattentive driving at a minimum. Its not really that difficult with the right tools and/or methods to tell in the majority of accidents what happened and what the cause was. Sure, there may not be a specific finger pointed at texting, or a specific time, but the fact the accident happened due to inattentive or distractive driving, or even happened at all, is enough for the accident to have for a fact happened due to some reason, the accident its self will supply the proof for at a minimum inattentive driving, and over 95% of people will at some point admit or positively indicate in some way, or give enough to allow the formation of a reasonable belief, they were texting when the accident happened if they were texting. The most stupid thing anyone can say for a car accident in which they are at fault is an excuse or defensive justifying answer for an action that led to the accident, or something like "I was driving along and this car comes out of no where." or similar or even "I didn't do anything wrong.", its pretty clear in 99% of the cases simply from the position of the vehicles who was at fault and if the driver at fault was inattentive at a minimum.

Personally, I think that if you're at fault in an accident then it should be determined if you had recently been SENDING texts. The carriers should make some sort of facility available to law enforcement for such purposes.

It should only tell them what time a text was sent, no other information, and there should be considerable oversight. But in my opinion it has to be done, too many people are getting hurt or worse. I have a friend whose twice rear ended someone (VERY minor) because he was texting, and he still doesn't get it.

It would be a tough sell in today's privacy conscientious environment, but it's needed. I'm also very concerned about privacy going forward with technology, so I think it would have to be limited to (Text Sent: 4:08pm), something like that.

Then, send out texts while driving and cause an accident and you don't get to drive for a while. Kill someone and go to jail.....

I'm more of a proponent of "throw them in jail for life if they're caught texting and driving". They're already acting is if texting is important enough to risk their lives over, so whats it matter if we just add a little more risk to the equation? If they value their lives, maybe they will be a little more careful with them.

Oh, and for all you Constitution buffs out there, its "cruel and unusual punishment". If you apply the law to everybody, its no longer unusual.

How about instead of throw them in jail, don't allow them to have a drivers license OR a phone capable of texting/email/etc.? Neither are "Rights", and both can, and should, be taken away. And yes, I realize how difficult it would be to enforce the no Smart Phone part, since you can get a burner/prepaid without showing ID easily enough. But those are more expensive options, and if you can't go to your local nTelos or Verizon store, but have to go to Frawg or something like that, it's going to be more expensive, potentially.

All I am going to say is "Duh?" Who, in their right mind, would have thought that more laws were going to solve a problem with behavior, when the offenders (in this case, teenagers), don't think they are doing anything wrong? Expecting it to completely eliminate the problem is rather naive... I mean, we've completely eliminated drunk driving, right? Expecting it to change in the short time these laws have been put into place is stupid at best.

Also, while it's good to get people to be less distracted while driving, I'm wondering if spending so much time and money on creating and enforcing these laws (above and beyond the already existing laws) is going to be productive. There were 53,000 fatalities on American roads in 2011 (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ ... ities.html). 3331 were distraction related, which is 6.2% of all fatalities, and 12% of those 3331 were cell phone related. That's 399. Even if we assume that, say, 60% of those 3331 were cell phone related, that's still only ~3.72% of all traffic fatalities for 2011. Wouldn't it be better to take all of that money that is going to be spent on trying to enforce these laws (which isn't really going to do much) and making the laws, and use it towards more education for teens to help prevent them from texting while driving? They're trying to make this out to be a huge problem, and I'm failing to see how more laws and no enforcement is going to help the situation, when education of the offenders should be the goal.

I would think that a modern car with Bluetooth should have enough spare computing power to be able to a) read text messages to you...that is easy and b) enable you to speak something like text: message to contact name or number and let the electronics in the car and in the phone do the work.

Shouldn't need much compute to do this.

You know, that "Reading your text message aloud" and "Using voice to put in a text message" stuff was invented by a man name Alexander Graham Bell in the late 1870s, right? It's called THE TELEPHONE.

I honestly do not understand this fixation with Texting some folks have. You can't totally misconstrue a poorly typed text message when you can hear it in the person's original voice. What's so hard about saying "Call.... Bob Smith.... Home"? And then you can use the in-car speaker phone to actually SPEAK to the person. And if they can't answer right away? The solution to that was invented in the 1880s, too, although it wasn't applied to Telephones until the 1930s or so... it's called an answering machine. Leave a voicemail, and they may get back to you.

Only hand held. Hands free (which includes Headsets in most cases) aren't considered a big problem, since you're simply talking to someone in the air, as opposed to holding up a device to your head; you can have both hands for controlling the vehicle.

Only hand held. Hands free (which includes Headsets in most cases) aren't considered a big problem, since you're simply talking to someone in the air, as opposed to holding up a device to your head; you can have both hands for controlling the vehicle.

It's been shown that holding the phone has no effect on how distracted you are.

I agree that there shouldn't be specific cases and exceptions. All irresponsible driving is equally bad. But I disagree on the manslaughter charge. Noone thinks they are going to get into that accident. Add just being a bad driver to your list of possible causes.

What is the solution? Teaching/forcing responsibility? Technological means of avoidance? That depends on what you think think the Gov'ts role is. Responsibility is great and all, but all people (and teens in particular) will not be responsible. How using GPS to determine a phones velocity and acceleration and then take action depending on the result. How about some type of pairing/proximity functionality that silences a particular phone when it is within arms reach of the steering column of a vehicle.

How about using GPS to determine velocity, then locking out the phone, and it can only be reenabled by entering a random number that is displayed on a fixed vehicle location out of the field of view of the driver?

Or we could just accept that accidents occur and move on.

Or we could invest in mass transit thus getting people off the roads

Or we could invest in drive by wire thus gettting people out from behind the driver seat.

Boskone wrote:

nononsense wrote:

If you are involved in an accident wile texting that results in a death, then a manslaughter charge is appropriate.

I'd say it should be manslaughter if it's determined you're at fault, irrespective of what causes the fault.

Talking to your passenger, under the influence, operating a phone, insufficient maintenance (e.g. brakes), whatever. There shouldn't be special cases, like killing someone because you were dumb and texting is worse than killing someone because you were dumb and didn't get your brakes fixed.

This whole discussion reads like a gun control thread: demonizing the device instead of the person wielding the device.

Bad drivers will continue to be bad drivers if you take away their cell phones. They will just be bad drivers eating, fixing their hair, reading the newspaper (I've seen it), or simply looking at the scenery instead of the road.

Am I the only one that looks at these stats and wonders what all the fuss is about with cell phones?

Let's look at some actual facts:

1) Most of these stats are based on "distracted drivers". That's a very broad category that includes things other than cell phones.

2) The linked pdf shows that 7% of traffic fatalities in 2011 were caused distracted drivers and 12% of those were using cell phones. So 0.8% of traffic fatalities were caused by drivers distracted by cell phones.

3) From the pdf: "Cell phone use was reported in an estimated 21,000 distraction-affected crashes". (For this stat, they are not limiting it to fatalities.) There are about 11 million traffic accidents every year. Therefore, cell phones account for only 0.2% of traffic accidents in the U.S.

4) Drunk driving still causes well over 10 times the number of fatalities as cell phone usage and 3 times the number of all distracted-driver fatalities.

5) The pdf states that 9% of drivers are using their cell phone in some manner at any point in time. Seems kind of inconceivable to me that this is true -- unless they are counting listening to Pandora over Bluetooth (which is no different than listening to the radio). Regardless, think about what this means for the concept that cell phone use is dangerous. At any point in time, almost 10% of drivers on the road are doing something with their cell phone, yet only 0.8% of traffic fatalities are caused by them. Maybe we should be encouraging cell phone use. (That last sentence was hyperbole... I know the statistics don't really work that way).

6) Approximately twice as many people are killed by cars running red lights than by cars driven by cell phone-using drivers. Yet municipalities are being forced to remove red light cameras. Similar debate going on with photo-radar, although stats/interpretation of speeding-related fatalities is more difficult to determine.

One statistic that seems to buck that assumption, however, is that in 2011 only “387,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving a distracted driver, compared to 416,000 injured in 2010

Is the NHTSA citing that as evidence that laws against cell phone usage/texting while driving are working? Because that's very weak evidence.... two data points don't make a trend.

I was going to mention this earlier.

It's a prime example of correlation =/= causation.

Some years are simply better than others and there is no real way to tell if those accidents were prevented by people not using their phones because of the law or simply not using their phones regardless.

Another good way to prevent texting and driving in kids is to notify their parents everytime it happens. That way they can discipline their kids if it happens. The Android app Smart Text and Drive (https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... .safe.text) has a pretty good solution to this.

Personally, I think that if you're at fault in an accident then it should be determined if you had recently been SENDING texts. The carriers should make some sort of facility available to law enforcement for such purposes.

It should only tell them what time a text was sent, no other information, and there should be considerable oversight. But in my opinion it has to be done, too many people are getting hurt or worse. I have a friend whose twice rear ended someone (VERY minor) because he was texting, and he still doesn't get it.

It would be a tough sell in today's privacy conscientious environment, but it's needed. I'm also very concerned about privacy going forward with technology, so I think it would have to be limited to (Text Sent: 4:08pm), something like that.

Then, send out texts while driving and cause an accident and you don't get to drive for a while. Kill someone and go to jail.....

One problem with that is, if it takes the police 10 minutes to show up to the scene of an accident, there is no way to prove the exact time that the accident happened, or that the text had anything to do with it.

Unless cars have black boxes like airplanes do...

Sure there is, there are a number of indicators. Simply the nature of the accident most times when texting is involved indicates inattentive driving at a minimum. Its not really that difficult with the right tools and/or methods to tell in the majority of accidents what happened and what the cause was. Sure, there may not be a specific finger pointed at texting, or a specific time, but the fact the accident happened due to inattentive or distractive driving, or even happened at all, is enough for the accident to have for a fact happened due to some reason, the accident its self will supply the proof for at a minimum inattentive driving, and over 95% of people will at some point admit or positively indicate in some way, or give enough to allow the formation of a reasonable belief, they were texting when the accident happened if they were texting. The most stupid thing anyone can say for a car accident in which they are at fault is an excuse or defensive justifying answer for an action that led to the accident, or something like "I was driving along and this car comes out of no where." or similar or even "I didn't do anything wrong.", its pretty clear in 99% of the cases simply from the position of the vehicles who was at fault and if the driver at fault was inattentive at a minimum.

Distracted driving is a problem. The source of distraction is a red herring. Banning devices leads to incoherence like making it legal to look at directions on paper but not on a tablet.

Today, if a driver hits someone, it is considered an unfortunate "accident." If the driver was not intoxicated and didn't leave the scene, they get off with a slap on the wrist. Others empathize with the driver who had an unavoidable misfortune.

A car can be a deadly weapon, and a driver has a lot of responsibility to pay attention and not collide with other things and people. There should be a higher standard for paying attention, regardless of the source of distraction.

The commenter who said that speed is safe if the driver is skilled - that leaves out the fact that at a higher speed, the consequences of collision are more severe. If a driver hits a pedestrian or cyclist, the chance of death or serious injury are much higher at 45mph than at 20mph. And stopping time is longer at a higher speed. If something goes wrong - even if a pedestrian or cyclist does something unexpected - the driver will cause more damage if they are speeding, and that extra damage is caused by that driver's excess speed.

I agree with all you are saying. One thing that I've yet to encounter in the discussion is the right vs. privilege aspect to all this. I am, quite frankly, sick and tired of driving being treated as a right in this country. Operating a high-speed, high-weight death machine should not be a right, it should be a privilege--one that should be promptly revoked if one abuses it in any way.

I've had European friends that have argued with me over why so many Americans feel as though driving and owning a car is a mandatory life choice, and I generally instruct them that it is because we don't have the in-place extensive public transit systems that other countries have, and that we have very large tracts of land that need to be covered sometimes between people's homes and workplaces. However, with these requirements and our society having evolved in such a personal transportation-minded way, I think we have lost sight that just because you may live 45 miles from work in an area where there may not be ample public transportation to handle your commuter needs, that in no way entitles you to the right to have a driver's license and operate a vehicle. If one is not capable of always respecting the fact that they are driving a potentially lethal weapon each time they get behind the wheel of their car, then they are just basically a Russian roulette waiting to go off on some pedestrian, cyclist, or other driver.

Personally, I think that revoking driver's licenses should be a more common practice when any accident is caused by a distracted driver of any sort. As it currently stands, if someone is texting and driving (or my personal favorite, posting on Facebook and driving) and causes an accident, then they may get a suspension, a fine, and maybe some jail time or a court battle (depending on the status of the victims of the accident). If people know that they will never drive again if they get caught once committing such acts, I'd like to think that would more effectively deter people from such horribly irresponsible behavior than the current system. And the great thing is, if it truly is younger drivers that are the worst offenders, then that means they'll spend far more years of their lives never driving if they screw up when they're only 20 years old.

In fairness, one should have a chance at regaining a driver's licenses after revocation when a certain period of time has passed. But I think they should have to start from scratch of going through driver's education classes (both the book/theoretical and the driving portion) and go through the whole application and testing process as if they had just turned 16 and were first-timers. Hell, if you have a 40-year-old that is forced to sit through a driver's ed class with the local 15- and 16-year-olds and publicly embarrass themselves by explaining they had to do all this because they couldn't keep their damned smartphone on the seat beside them an wait to respond to a post on Facebook til they got home, then maybe such an example would help deter some of the younger soon-to-be-drivers from making the same humiliating and potentially dangerous mistake.

Also, parents need to discipline the crap out of their teens when they are caught doing any of this stuff. Screw the government having to make laws. Take away your kid's driver's license if they can't stay off the phone.

The only part of this article that has anything to do with the headline is the following:

As the Los Angeles Times points out, there doesn't seem to be much proof that distracted driving laws, which have been enacted in 39 states and prohibit texting or using hand-held phones in some form or another, have actually decreased the number of distracted drivers on the road.

"there doesn't seem to be much proof" - weak weasel words. There doesn't seem to be a spaghetti monster either.

Other than this sentence (and arguably the last paragraph generalizing "distracted driving" that may include texting), the entirety of the rest of the article, including the report that was the basis of this article, is about using cell phones to make phone calls, not to text.

Whoever wrote the headline should be ashamed.

(Though, to be fair, the entire headline writing profession is about how to twist the piece and appear as controversial as possible. Thus they should be ashamed anyway to have chosen a profession that incorporates dishonesty as a core value. This is also why is pisses me off when its so blatantly untrue and prompts me to rail against it when given the opportunity to post in a comments section.)

It's going to solve problems as much as posting and enforcing speed limits do. People will speed. People will text. Make sure people are aware it is bad. Enforce without being an ass. Attitudes will change.

It will never ever ever be eliminated. Just like speeding.

There is nothing inherently wrong with driving at a fast speed.

Bad, untrained, and incompetent drivers make speeding dangerous. But you can say those drivers are dangerous any time they get behind a wheel whether or not they speed.

To equate speeding and distracted driving is absurd.

If someone texts responsibly then what? At stop lights? Stop signs? Speeding is speeding. There is sensible speed, sensible texting. The absurdness is of you not understanding the issue.

Are the negative ratings from people who equate speeding with freedom?

Personally, I think that if you're at fault in an accident then it should be determined if you had recently been SENDING texts. The carriers should make some sort of facility available to law enforcement for such purposes.

The obvious problem with this is proving that you were driving while sending texts while travelling at 70mph. Even aside from texting while a passenger, I've handed my phone to passengers to check and respond to texts if I had a reason to think something important might come through.

It's actually not difficult. SMS records are easily available from cellular carriers and can be correlated in time to when the accident occured. This has been used routinely when texting has been suspected. Here's an example where cell phone records were used to prove a train conducter was texting right before a crash. And this was back in 2008.

And how many passengers were in the driver's compartment of the train?

If you have text records from a collision, it would be circumstantial at best to say X person then had possession of the phone.

I agree that there shouldn't be specific cases and exceptions. All irresponsible driving is equally bad. But I disagree on the manslaughter charge. Noone thinks they are going to get into that accident. Add just being a bad driver to your list of possible causes.

If you're a bad driver, you shouldn't be driving; you're still at fault for any fatalities by deciding to drive in an impaired state, even if that state is normal for you.

That's why we have trials. They determine if you were at fault (you were drunk, you failed to perform adequate maintenance, you have random seizures and knew about it, etc), or you aren't (you hit a broken bottle which caused a blowout, which caused you to impact an oncoming vehicle). If you're found at fault, you get the manslaughter charge; if you're not, then you only have the emotional sideffects of having accidently killed someone.

The actual cause of the accident shouldn't, beyond fault or no fault, alter the sentence. That means the rest of your objections are pretty well irrelevant.

Quote:

What is the solution? Teaching/forcing responsibility? Technological means of avoidance? That depends on what you think think the Gov'ts role is. Responsibility is great and all, but all people (and teens in particular) will not be responsible.

That's actually the point, theoretically, of the judicial system: if you can't be responsible for yourself, you make society responsible. You suffer the punishment appropriate to your misbehavior. (Note: theory; our justice system needs a good overhaul.)

Quote:

How using GPS to determine a phones velocity and acceleration and then take action depending on the result.

Would disable passengers' devices, pointlessly. Also, the drive does need access to the device; I routinely check who's calling, and determine if I need to answer and pull over, or just ignore it.

Quote:

How about some type of pairing/proximity functionality that silences a particular phone when it is within arms reach of the steering column of a vehicle.

No reliable mechanism.

Quote:

How about using GPS to determine velocity, then locking out the phone, and it can only be reenabled by entering a random number that is displayed on a fixed vehicle location out of the field of view of the driver?

Same issue as a couple points back.

Quote:

Or we could just accept that accidents occur and move on.

That's the point of my statement. Manslaughter is manslaughter, regardless of mechanism. Gun, car, hammer, hatchet, poison, whatever; determine if it was manslaughter, murder, or none of the above, and the mechanism used should be irrelevant. No need to have new laws for "vehicular manslaughter".

Quote:

Or we could invest in mass transit thus getting people off the roads

I've actually said this about a million times. I would love to be able to only use my vehicle when I need to run errands that aren't mass-transit friendly, like picking up compost or going fishing.

Quote:

Or we could invest in drive by wire thus gettting [sic] people out from behind the driver seat.

A self-driving car is one of the few things that would make me off and buy a new vehicle.

Personally, I think that if you're at fault in an accident then it should be determined if you had recently been SENDING texts. The carriers should make some sort of facility available to law enforcement for such purposes.

It should only tell them what time a text was sent, no other information, and there should be considerable oversight. But in my opinion it has to be done, too many people are getting hurt or worse. I have a friend whose twice rear ended someone (VERY minor) because he was texting, and he still doesn't get it.

It would be a tough sell in today's privacy conscientious environment, but it's needed. I'm also very concerned about privacy going forward with technology, so I think it would have to be limited to (Text Sent: 4:08pm), something like that.

Then, send out texts while driving and cause an accident and you don't get to drive for a while. Kill someone and go to jail.....

My truck could send a text through the voice command menu, without ever taking my eyes off the road, what then?

Personally, I think that if you're at fault in an accident then it should be determined if you had recently been SENDING texts. The carriers should make some sort of facility available to law enforcement for such purposes.

I send texts hands-free all the time. I use a voice command like "Text so and so," then speak the message I want to send, which is transcribed by the software and sent.

Personally, I think that if you're at fault in an accident then it should be determined if you had recently been SENDING texts. The carriers should make some sort of facility available to law enforcement for such purposes.

It should only tell them what time a text was sent, no other information, and there should be considerable oversight. But in my opinion it has to be done, too many people are getting hurt or worse. I have a friend whose twice rear ended someone (VERY minor) because he was texting, and he still doesn't get it.

It would be a tough sell in today's privacy conscientious environment, but it's needed. I'm also very concerned about privacy going forward with technology, so I think it would have to be limited to (Text Sent: 4:08pm), something like that.

Then, send out texts while driving and cause an accident and you don't get to drive for a while. Kill someone and go to jail.....

One problem with that is, if it takes the police 10 minutes to show up to the scene of an accident, there is no way to prove the exact time that the accident happened, or that the text had anything to do with it.

Unless cars have black boxes like airplanes do...

Sure there is, there are a number of indicators. Simply the nature of the accident most times when texting is involved indicates inattentive driving at a minimum. Its not really that difficult with the right tools and/or methods to tell in the majority of accidents what happened and what the cause was. Sure, there may not be a specific finger pointed at texting, or a specific time, but the fact the accident happened due to inattentive or distractive driving, or even happened at all, is enough for the accident to have for a fact happened due to some reason, the accident its self will supply the proof for at a minimum inattentive driving, and over 95% of people will at some point admit or positively indicate in some way, or give enough to allow the formation of a reasonable belief, they were texting when the accident happened if they were texting. The most stupid thing anyone can say for a car accident in which they are at fault is an excuse or defensive justifying answer for an action that led to the accident, or something like "I was driving along and this car comes out of no where." or similar or even "I didn't do anything wrong.", its pretty clear in 99% of the cases simply from the position of the vehicles who was at fault and if the driver at fault was inattentive at a minimum.

Think it's enough to convince a 12-person jury of guilt?

yep, I do if there is a reasonable belief, happens every day across the country.

Disagree.The faster you travel the shorter your reaction time & braking distance.The faster you travel the less safe it is.

Yes, scientifically you are right. But in reality, you are wrong.

Most accidents happen on local streets at less than 40MPH. Like intersections. Why? Because there are far more things going on and distances between objects are far far shorter than on a highway.

So in fact, the way roads are designed, the slower you drive the shorter your reaction time and braking distance.

There is a reason highways are designed the way they are. No pedestrians. No bicycles. Divided medians. All of those things, plus other design elements of a highway, including things like the distance of the dashed lines, are designed for high speed driving. And all of those things more than compensate for the effects of speed.

Additionally, yes, time to react is reduced at higher speed, duh. But the human mind is an amazing thing. It has this amazing ability for higher thought. And you can use that to compensate. For instance, a properly trained driver knows that when driving on a highway, you should be looking as far down the road as possible, basically at the horizon. This allows you to see things well in advance. You can pretty much not focus on close in things, your peripheral vision is good enough to pick it up.

Unfortunately, most US drivers focus on the car in front of them.

If you do not know how to drive at speed on a highway, then you are a poorly trained/incompetent driver. Which sadly, in the US, is the norm.

And finally, using your logic, all highway speed should be reduced to 30MPH. Because clearly, it would be twice as safe....

It's going to solve problems as much as posting and enforcing speed limits do. People will speed. People will text. Make sure people are aware it is bad. Enforce without being an ass. Attitudes will change.

It will never ever ever be eliminated. Just like speeding.

There is nothing inherently wrong with driving at a fast speed.

Bad, untrained, and incompetent drivers make speeding dangerous. But you can say those drivers are dangerous any time they get behind a wheel whether or not they speed.

To equate speeding and distracted driving is absurd.

If someone texts responsibly then what? At stop lights? Stop signs? Speeding is speeding. There is sensible speed, sensible texting. The absurdness is of you not understanding the issue.

You do realize that you have just bought into propaganda? Speed limits were enacted NOT for safety reasons but for fuel economy reasons? They were just marketed as safer.

It has been proven that driving at a high rate of speed does not increase accidents. Driving at high speed is not inherently any more dangerous.

More accidents occur at low speed than at high speed. Usually at very low speed like at an intersection. Or a stop sign.

And you do realize that the national speed limit was repealed in 1995 and speed limits were raised in various states? And that there was NO corresponding increase in accidents or mortality? In fact, the fatality rate actually dropped in places where the speed limit was raised. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of propaganda.

Studies have shown that a proper speed limit in the US should be 85-95MPH. That said, yes, the fastest drivers are at higher risk than average. Mostly this is due to other high risk driving behavior, like weaving. But the most dangerous group of drivers are the SLOWEST ones. The conclusion is that it has nothing to do with actual speed, but divergence from average speed. In other words, if everyone is going 100MPH, you would be safest driving 100MPH like everyone else.

It has been proven that driving at a high rate of speed does not increase accidents. Driving at high speed is not inherently any more dangerous.

No. It absolutely has not been proven that driving fast is not more dangerous. It is more dangerous. Please stop spreading FUD about things that could get people killed.

Quote:

More accidents occur at low speed than at high speed. Usually at very low speed like at an intersection. Or a stop sign.

With correspondingly lower injury/fatality rates.

Quote:

And you do realize that the national speed limit was repealed in 1995 and speed limits were raised in various states? And that there was NO corresponding increase in accidents or mortality? In fact, the fatality rate actually dropped in places where the speed limit was raised. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of propaganda.

Because people didn't end up driving a whole lot faster. Turns out, if you raise the speed limit, you mostly get people driving the exact same speed as before, but just doing it legally. This is why your first comment above about safety of speeding is wrong.

Quote:

Studies have shown that a proper speed limit in the US should be 85-95MPH. That said, yes, the fastest drivers are at higher risk than average. Mostly this is due to other high risk driving behavior, like weaving. But the most dangerous group of drivers are the SLOWEST ones. The conclusion is that it has nothing to do with actual speed, but divergence from average speed. In other words, if everyone is going 100MPH, you would be safest driving 100MPH like everyone else.

There are no such studies. Congress ordered that the interestates be future-proofed by requiring them to be designed based on 85MPH speeds, but that's not the same as saying it's just as safe as 55MPH.

Because people didn't end up driving a whole lot faster. Turns out, if you raise the speed limit, you mostly get people driving the exact same speed as before, but just doing it legally. This is why your first comment above about safety of speeding is wrong.

The speed limit in Kansas (70 MPH for highways) was set at "what 85% of drivers drive at or below." At least according to the State Trooper I spoke with about it. i.e.; It was set "at a speed consistent with the general flow of traffic."

Simple physics and statistics disagree with you. The odds of collision are lower on a highway, and if you're not colliding with anything, there's no chance of injury (let alone death).

What this boils down to is that just because something "feels right" (going fast = dangerous) doesn't make it true. This is, unfortunately, a common fallacy. It crops up everywhere and causes no end of problems in human affairs.

It has been proven that driving at a high rate of speed does not increase accidents. Driving at high speed is not inherently any more dangerous.

No. It absolutely has not been proven that driving fast is not more dangerous. It is more dangerous. Please stop spreading FUD about things that could get people killed.

Quote:

More accidents occur at low speed than at high speed. Usually at very low speed like at an intersection. Or a stop sign.

With correspondingly lower injury/fatality rates.

Quote:

And you do realize that the national speed limit was repealed in 1995 and speed limits were raised in various states? And that there was NO corresponding increase in accidents or mortality? In fact, the fatality rate actually dropped in places where the speed limit was raised. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of propaganda.

Because people didn't end up driving a whole lot faster. Turns out, if you raise the speed limit, you mostly get people driving the exact same speed as before, but just doing it legally. This is why your first comment above about safety of speeding is wrong.

Quote:

Studies have shown that a proper speed limit in the US should be 85-95MPH. That said, yes, the fastest drivers are at higher risk than average. Mostly this is due to other high risk driving behavior, like weaving. But the most dangerous group of drivers are the SLOWEST ones. The conclusion is that it has nothing to do with actual speed, but divergence from average speed. In other words, if everyone is going 100MPH, you would be safest driving 100MPH like everyone else.

There are no such studies. Congress ordered that the interestates be future-proofed by requiring them to be designed based on 85MPH speeds, but that's not the same as saying it's just as safe as 55MPH.

That study doesn't say what you think it does. I would recommend reading it again.

If you look at my posts, I never disputed the physics.

What I disputed is the false reasoning.

Feel free to study the actual accident and fatality statistics. Which you seem to conveniently ignore. Statistics have shown that any increase in highway speed limits did NOT result in a corresponding increase in fatalities. In fact, the rate decreased. The one of the inferred reasons is that people became more likely to choose a highway instead of local road. Which means the SAFER road.

Simple statistics seems to disagree with you.

I will state again. Highways are designed for high speed driving. They are designed to mitigate any increase in danger resulting from higher speed. So, while the physics say higher speed = higher danger, the DESIGN of the road system mitigates that. You seem to completely ignore that while the physics says increased danger, design can mitigate or eliminate that danger.

EXAMPLE: Object going at high rate of speed impacts a stationary fixed object. While the vehicle might stop immediately, inertial energy still exists and person in vehicle continues to move, until said energy dissipates, usually by impact, like with the windshield, dash and steering wheel, causing possible severe injury to said person. SOLUTION: Seatbelt, safety cage, and crumple zones (including the steering wheel). Seatbelts alone provide a massive increase in survival rates.

Its amazing how physics still applies and yet safety happens, even in more unsafe conditions. Human ingenuity is surprisingly good at coming up with solutions to physics problems.

Finally, I suspect you read that link and only saw what you wanted to see, to verify your false reasoning. Ignoring the overall findings.

Simple physics and statistics disagree with you. The odds of collision are lower on a highway, and if you're not colliding with anything, there's no chance of injury (let alone death).

What this boils down to is that just because something "feels right" (going fast = dangerous) doesn't make it true. This is, unfortunately, a common fallacy. It crops up everywhere and causes no end of problems in human affairs.

NO NO NO

All that proves is driving on limited-access highways is safer than surface streets. It does not prove that faster is just as safe as slower.

BTW, you are only sort of right in the first half of your comment. It is true that it is dangerous to force a lower speed limit than people are going to drive anyway. But that's not because driving faster is just as safe. It's because if 85% of people are going 70 mph and 15% and going 55 mph, that is more dangerous than everyone going 70 mph. In that case, you may improve safety by just giving in and telling everyone to drive 70 mph. But the least dangerous situation would be if you could convince everyone to go 55 mph (which, obviously, we can't).

In other words, it is safer when everyone goes the same speed. But it is even safer when everyone goes a slower speed.

Feel free to study the actual accident and fatality statistics. Which you seem to conveniently ignore. Statistics have shown that any increase in highway speed limits did NOT result in a corresponding increase in fatalities. In fact, the rate decreased. The one of the inferred reasons is that people became more likely to choose a highway instead of local road. Which means the SAFER road.

Simple statistics seems to disagree with you.

Nope. Go back and read those reports. Fatalities did not decline, they stayed flat. And the reason they stayed flat was because, basically, average speeds didn't change at all.

Quote:

I will state again. Highways are designed for high speed driving. They are designed to mitigate any increase in danger resulting from higher speed. So, while the physics say higher speed = higher danger, the DESIGN of the road system mitigates that. You seem to completely ignore that while the physics says increased danger, design can mitigate or eliminate that danger.

EXAMPLE: Object going at high rate of speed impacts a stationary fixed object. While the vehicle might stop immediately, inertial energy still exists and person in vehicle continues to move, until said energy dissipates, usually by impact, like with the windshield, dash and steering wheel, causing possible severe injury to said person. SOLUTION: Seatbelt, safety cage, and crumple zones (including the steering wheel). Seatbelts alone provide a massive increase in survival rates.

Yet you'd still have a lower odds of dying if the vehicle was travelling more slowly. Doesn't matter how many safety systems you add.

Quote:

Its amazing how physics still applies and yet safety happens, even in more unsafe conditions. Human ingenuity is surprisingly good at coming up with solutions to physics problems.

Finally, I suspect you read that link and only saw what you wanted to see, to verify your false reasoning. Ignoring the overall findings.

But whatever. Its up to you to choose to believe the facts or not.

Then show me the facts. You gave a link that didn't say what you said it did. Now you're spouting facts that are untrue. And you're claiming my reasoning is faulty, when yours lacks even simple logic.